United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

VETERANS’ 

EMPLOYMENT AND 

TRAINING SERVICE 

Labor Actions Needed 

to Improve 

Accountability and 

Help States Implement 

Reforms to Veterans’ 

Employment Services 

December 2005 

 

GAO-06-176 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

December 2005

VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND 

TRAINING SERVICE 

Labor Actions Needed to Improve 

Accountability and Help States Implement 

Reforms to Veterans’ Employment 

Services 

Highlights of GAO-06-176, a report to 

congressional committees 

Roughly 700,000 veterans have

been unemployed in recent

months, a figure that could swell 

considerably with the anticipated

increase in the number of people 

leaving active duty. Congress 

passed the Jobs for Veterans Act in 

2002 to improve employment and 

training services for veterans and 

to encourage employers to hire 

them. As mandated by law, GAO 

reviewed progress to date in its 

implementation, including the 

development of new staff roles and 

responsibilities, performance 

accountability system, incentive

awards, and priority of service to

veterans. GAO examined (1) 

implementation status of the key 

provisions and any associated 

challenges, (2) what is known 

about services and outcomes since

the law’s enactment, and (3)

changes in program accountability.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that the 

Department of Labor provide clear 

guidance that would integrate 

veterans’ staff into the one-stops, 

ensure priority of service for 

veterans among all programs, and

foster state use of incentives. GAO 

is also recommending that Labor’s 

program offices coordinate their

oversight regarding JVA provisions,

and that Labor use monitoring

results to develop program 

improvements. Finally, GAO 

recommends that Labor establish 

effective methods for enforcing 

federal contractor requirements. 

Labor agreed with these 

recommendations. 

Labor implemented most provisions of the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) 

within the first 2 years of its enactment. However, some are not fully 

implemented, such as measures to increase service priority for veterans in 

the full spectrum of Labor’s training programs, and others designed to 

improve accountability from states and federal contractors. States also 

report substantial progress implementing the law, but challenges remain in 

some areas. About one-third of the states, for example, did not establish 

incentive award programs for their workforce personnel because their laws, 

policies, or agreements conflict with this JVA provision. 

Most state workforce administrators surveyed reported that the new 

legislation has improved both the quality of services to veterans and their 

employment outcomes. They credited the greater availability of case 

management services under JVA for much of the improvement in

employment. They cited lack of federal contractor compliance with the 

law’s provisions as most likely to have limited veterans’ employment 

opportunities. Aside from the law’s influence, they cited the willingness of 

employers to hire veterans and the strength of the local job market as 

significant factors affecting veterans’ employment. 

About half of state directors of Veterans’ Employment and Training reported 

their new monitoring role had strengthened local program accountability. 

However, just over a third reported that accountability had either lessened 

or not improved. Some partly attributed this to absence of local 

performance data and fewer annual visits to one-stop centers. GAO found, 

as well, that a lack of coordination among Labor’s agencies responsible for 

certain JVA provisions has weakened accountability. Also, while Labor has 

developed a system to monitor program performance, it lacks a strategy for 

using the information it gathers to make improvements and to help states. 

Advertisement on City Bus for the Hire Vets First Promotional Campaign 

Source: President’s National Hire Veterans Committee.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-176.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd R. 

Nilsen at (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5

Most JVA Provisions Have Been Carried Out, but Not without 

Some Challenges 8 

State Administrators Reported Improvement in Veterans’ Services 

and Employment Outcomes 27 

Absence of Local Level Data and Lack of Coordinated Oversight 

Weaken Program Accountability 30 

Conclusions 36

Recommendations for Executive Action 37 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 39 

Appendix II Comparison of DVOP and LVER Grant Funding, 

Fiscal Years 2003 and 2005 42 

Appendix III State Incentive Award Allocation and Expenditures, 

Fiscal Year 2004 44 

Appendix IV State-Negotiated Goals for Veterans Entering 

Employment through the DVOP and LVER Programs, 

Program Years 2004 and 2005 46 

Appendix V States’ Use of Full-Time and Part-Time Veterans’ 

Staff 48 

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Labor 52 

Page i GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 55 

Related GAO Products 56 

Tables 

Table 1: Comparison of Selected Provisions under Title 38 and JVA 6 

Table 2: Summary of Labor’s Completed and Planned Actions to 

Implement Selected JVA Provisions, as of December 2005 9 

Table 3: Veterans’ Participation in ETA Programs for Adult Job 

Seekers, Program Year 2003 15 

Table 4: Development of DVOP and LVER Performance Measures 

and Reporting Requirements 17 

Table 5: Utilization of DVOP Staff 48 

Table 6: Utilization of LVER Staff 50 

Figures 

Figure 1: State Workforce Administrators with Positive Comments 

on the Quality of Labor’s Guidance and Assistance on 

New Roles for Veterans’ Staff 11 

Figure 2: Allocation of Projected Total Expenditures of the 

President’s National Hire Veterans Committee through 

Fiscal Year 2005 19 

Figure 3: Extent to Which the Committee’s Promotional Activities 

Have Benefited Veterans in Obtaining Employment 20 

Figure 4: State Actions to Implement JVA in more than 75 Percent 

of Local Offices or One-Stop Centers, as of October 2005 22 

Figure 5: Use of Part-Time Veterans’ Staff in Local Offices 23 

Figure 6: Effect of Incentive Award Program on Staff Integration, 

Morale, and Performance 25 

Figure 7: Improvements in Services to Veterans since JVA Was 

Enacted 28

Figure 8: Factors That Assisted Veterans in Obtaining Employment 29 

Figure 9: Factors That Delayed or Prevented Veterans from 

Obtaining Employment 30 

Figure 10: Extent That VETS’ New Monitoring Role Strengthened 

Performance Accountability at the Local Level 32 

Page ii GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Figure 11: Extent to Which VETS’ Monitoring Tools Strengthened 

Performance Accountability 33 

Figure 12: Methods Used to Coordinate Monitoring Activities 

between VETS and ETA 35 

Abbreviations 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CPS Current Population Survey 

DVOP Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program 

ETA Employment and Training Administration 

JVA Jobs for Veterans Act 

LAUS Local Area Unemployment Statistics 

LVER Local Veterans’ Employment Representative 

NVTI National Veterans’ Training Institute 

OFCCP Office of Contract Compliance Programs 

VETS Veterans’ Employment and Training Service 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

December 30, 2005 

The Honorable Larry E. Craig 

Chairman 

The Honorable Daniel Akaka 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Steve Buyer 

Chairman 

The Honorable Lane Evans 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

House of Representatives 

In recent years, roughly 700,000 veterans have been unemployed in any 

given month, and that figure could swell considerably with the anticipated 

increase in the number of service members currently leaving active duty 

and returning to civilian life—approximately 200,000 a year, according to 

the Department of Labor (Labor). Since we last reported on veterans’ 

employment and training services,1

 Congress passed the Jobs for Veterans 

Act (JVA) to improve employment and training services for veterans and 

to encourage employers to hire them. The act made several changes to the 

two Labor programs that focus exclusively on veterans and that are 

administered by the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS):

the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans’

Employment Representative program (LVER). It clarified the respective 

roles of DVOP and LVER staff and required the establishment of a 

performance accountability system, and an incentive award program. JVA 

provided states administering the programs more flexibility by funding 

both programs through one allocation, allowing states to choose the mix 

of staff and whether they would be hired on a full-time or part-time basis. 

Additionally, it called for the integration of DVOP and LVER staff into the 

one-stop delivery system established in 1998 under the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) to streamline services provided by federal 

 1

 GAO, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and Accountability 

Needed to Improve Service to Veterans, GAO-01-928 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2001). 

Page 1 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
employment and training programs. JVA expanded Labor’s focus on 

veterans by requiring that all of the agency’s training programs give 

veterans priority in receiving their services, within their target population.

It also required Labor to establish a national minimum standard--or 

threshold--for veterans’ employment. Finally, to encourage businesses to 

hire veterans, the act established a committee to develop a national 

campaign promoting veterans and updated existing requirements that 

employers who receive federal contracts advertise job openings at the 

appropriate employment service delivery system and report on their 

veteran hiring practices. 

In light of the many changes introduced by the Jobs for Veterans Act, and

as mandated by the act, we conducted a study on the implementation of its 

provisions. In reviewing federal and state progress in carrying out the act’s 

provisions, we examined (1) the implementation status of the key 

provisions and any associated challenges, (2) what is known about 

services and outcomes since the law’s enactment, and (3) how 

accountability has changed for the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach and Local 

Veterans’ Employment Representative programs. 

To obtain information to address our objectives, we administered two 

surveys, one to the state directors of veterans’ employment and training 

and the other to state workforce administrators in all 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. We received responses from all 51 state directors of 

veterans’ employment and training and 50 state workforce administrators2

. 

We validated the survey instruments through pretest but did not verify the 

information respondents provided. To further understand local area 

approaches to JVA implementation, we visited 10 local one-stop centers in

five states: California, Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, and Washington. We 

selected these states on the basis of several criteria, including geographic 

dispersion, range of sizes as determined by funding allocation, whether the 

state had implemented JVA’s incentive award program, and 

recommendations by Labor, veterans’ service organizations, and the 

National Association of State Workforce Agencies. On the basis of these 

organizations’ recommendations, we then chose two local one-stop 

centers that were either further along in implementation or were facing

some challenges. Our site visits at the state level included interviews with 

officials from the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service and state 

workforce agency; at the local level, we interviewed one-stop management 

 2

The state workforce administrator from the District of Columbia did not respond. 

Page 2 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
and staff, including veterans’ staff. In addition, we also visited the National 

Veterans’ Training Institute in Denver, Colorado, where we interviewed 

training officials, state-level Veterans’ Employment and Training officials, 

and veterans’ staff from 24 states who were attending training classes. We 

also met with representatives of various veterans’ service organizations 

and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. Finally, we 

spoke with federal officials at other Labor agencies responsible for 

implementing JVA, including the Employment and Training Administration

(ETA), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Women’s 

Bureau, Office of Disability Employment Policy, and Bureau of 

International Labor Affairs. For a greater discussion of our scope and 

methodology, see appendix I. Our work was conducted between January 

and November 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

Labor took action to implement most JVA provisions within the first 2 

years of the new legislation. For example, Labor issued guidance on new 

roles and responsibilities for DVOP and LVER staff as well as implemented 

a new funding formula for allocating grant funds to states. However, 

federal actions are still outstanding for certain provisions designed to give 

priority to veterans in Labor training programs, update federal contractor

regulations, and improve state accountability for veteran employment. For 

example, Labor agencies have not provided complete guidance to grantees 

required to provide priority of service to veterans in the various Labor 

training programs, or on reporting requirements. In addition, the 

department anticipates it will be 2007 before sufficient trend data will be 

available to replace individual state goals for veterans’ employment with a 

national standard common to all states. Also, Labor has not updated 

regulations on federal contractors’ hiring and reporting practices because 

of a lack of consensus and coordination on how to implement and enforce 

this provision. States reported good progress in implementing provisions 

through October 2005, but challenges remain in certain states and local 

areas. For example, most states reported that veterans’ staff have 

transitioned to their new roles and responsibilities in over 75 percent of 

local workforce offices, but that integration with other staff in some local

offices remains a challenge. Similarly, about one-third of states reported 

that they did not establish incentive programs recognizing high-quality 

veterans’ services because this JVA requirement conflicts with state laws, 

policies, or collective bargaining agreements. While most state workforce 

administrators reported on our survey that good progress has been made 

in implementing priority of service for veterans in Labor training 

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
programs, officials in some areas we visited were unaware of or confused 

by Labor’s guidance on this JVA requirement. 

Most state workforce administrators reported that the new legislation has

improved the quality of services to veterans, including disabled veterans, 

and has also improved employment outcomes. They credited the greater 

availability of case management services through DVOP staff, citing this 

factor most often in helping veterans obtain employment. In contrast, state 

administrators reported that the lack of federal contractor compliance 

with the requirement to list job openings at the local one-stop centers has 

limited veteran employment opportunities. Non-JVA factors also played a 

significant role in employment outcomes. In particular, administrators 

cited the willingness of employers to hire veterans and the strength of the

local job market as significant factors. 

While about half of state VETS directors reported that their monitoring 

role under JVA had strengthened local accountability for the DVOP and 

LVER programs, just over a third reported that it had either lessened or 

not improved. Monitoring tools most often reported to strengthen 

accountability were analysis of local level performance data and site visits

to local offices. However, VETS directors in 21 states reported that locallevel data were unavailable, potentially limiting federal oversight of local 

office performance in these states to site visits conducted every 5 years. 

Although not specifically required by JVA, the lack of coordinated 

oversight by agencies within Labor that share responsibility for 

implementing certain JVA provisions weakens performance 

accountability. For example, only five state VETS directors reported 

taking a coordinated approach with ETA to monitor local office 

performance, share results, and take corrective action. Also, in terms of 

federal oversight, VETS lacks a strategy to use monitoring results to 

improve program performance. For example, state performance goals for 

the rate at which veterans enter employment range from 38 percent to 65

percent, but VETS has not proactively identified why goals are lower in 

some states than in other states and targeted these states for assistance. 

To improve the way JVA is implemented, we are making a number of 

recommendations to Labor regarding integration of veterans’ staff into the

one-stops, priority of service across all programs, best practices on 

awarding performance incentives, coordinated monitoring efforts, and 

also implementation and enforcement of federal contractor requirements. 

Page 4 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
In its written comments, Labor generally concurred with our findings and 

recommendations. 

JVA3

 amended Title 38 of the U.S. Code, the legislation that governs the 

DVOP and LVER programs, and by doing so, introduced an array of 

reforms to the way employment, training, and placement services are 

provided to veterans. (See table 1.) JVA addressed concerns raised by 

some that Title 38 was overly prescriptive and did not provide states the 

flexibility to determine the best way to serve veteran job seekers. For 

example, JVA amended Title 38 by removing provisions detailing the 

specific duties of DVOP and LVER staff and how they were to be assigned.

4

Under JVA, the states have the authority to employ, subject to Labor’s 

approval, a sufficient number of full or part-time DVOP staff to provide 

intensive services to eligible veterans, giving priority to disabled veterans 

and others as Labor determines. Similarly, JVA gives the states authority to 

employ a sufficient number of LVERs to carry out employment, training, 

and placement services, including conducting outreach to employers and 

facilitating services furnished to veterans under the applicable state 

employment service delivery systems. Beginning July 2003, states and 

localities were required to implement JVA provisions. 

Background 

 3

 Pub. L. No. 107-288 (2002). 

4

 Prior to JVA, Title 38 provided that there was to be one DVOP for each 7,400 veterans in a 

state and prescribed 11 functions the DVOP staff to carry out in providing services to 

eligible veterans. Similarly, prior to JVA, Title 38 provided that in any fiscal year funding

should be available for 1,600 full-time LVER staff and prescribed how those LVER staff 

were to be allocated to the states and assigned to local employment service offices. In 

addition, Title 38 prescribed 13 functions to be performed by the LVER staff. 

Page 5 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Table 1: Comparison of Selected Provisions under Title 38 and JVA 

Title 38 before JVA amendments JVA 

State funding

• Funding is available by grant or contract through two 

separate allocations, each with its own funding formula that 

prescribes total number and location of DVOP and LVER 

staff for each state. 

• States submit grant applications to request funding. 

• Funding is available by grant or contract through one allocation 

under a new funding formula that allows states to determine

number of DVOP and LVER staff. 

• Requires state plan as a condition of funding, which must include a 

description of how veterans’ staff will be integrated into the service 

delivery system, their duties, and the veterans’ population to be 

served. 

Staff roles and responsibilities

• Prescribes 11 specific duties for DVOP staff and 13 for 

LVER staff. 

• Only LVER staff may be assigned on a part-time basis. 

• Clearly distinguishes DVOP and LVER staff roles and gives states 

flexibility in deciding their duties. 

• Allows both types of staff to be assigned on a part-time basis. 

Priority of service

• Eligible veterans and spouses of certain veterans receive 

priority of service in those federally funded employment and 

training programs that specifically require it.

• Eligible veterans and spouses of certain veterans receive priority 

of service in all Labor-funded employment and training programs. 

Performance accountability 

• Performance measures emphasize processes over 

outcomes. 

• National standard not required. 

• Each local employment office evaluated annually. 

• Comprehensive performance accountability system consistent with 

WIA performance measures. 

• National performance standard for the rate at which veterans enter 

employment, a rate that all states are expected to meet. 

• Annual performance reviews of veterans’ services without 

specifying how many local offices will be evaluated. 

Incentive awards

• No incentive award program. • Incentive award program to encourage the improvement and 

modernization of veterans’ services and recognize exemplary staff.

Committees

• No such committee. • President’s National Hire Veterans Committee to market veterans 

as a viable workforce resource. 

Federal contractors

• Requires regulations for employers with federal contracts of

$25,000 or more to list all their job openings as appropriate, 

give veterans priority in referral to those jobs, and report on 

their hiring practices. 

• Raises federal contract threshold amount to $100,000 or more, 

requires contractors to list their job openings and give veterans 

priority in referral to those jobs, and modifies categories of 

veterans to be reported. 

Source: GAO analysis of Title 38 and JVA legislation. 

Page 6 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Within Labor, two agencies---VETS and ETA—share responsibility for 

helping the nation’s veterans find employment. Among the programs that 

VETS administers are the DVOP and LVER programs, which were funded 

at about $162 million in fiscal year 2005.5

 Prior to JVA, funding for these 

two programs was allocated as two separate grants to states. Under JVA, 

however, the DVOP and LVER grants are allocated as one funding stream 

to states, and states use this funding to support nearly 2,400 veterans’ 

specialist and representative positions nationwide. To promote the 

professional competence of these veterans’ service providers, VETS 

received about $2 million in fiscal year 2005 for the National Veterans’ 

Training Institute to develop and deliver training. In addition, JVA 

authorized funding for the newly created President’s National Hire 

Veterans Committee at a level of $3 million annually, from fiscal year 2003 

through 2005, to carry out its marketing and promotional activities, and 

stipulated that the committee would terminate in February 2006, 2 months 

after issuing a final annual report on its activities. 

VETS carries out its responsibilities through a nationwide network that 

includes representation in each of Labor’s six regions and staff in each

state. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for VETS administers the 

agency’s activities through regional administrators and state directors. The 

state directors are the link between VETS and the states’ employment 

service system that is overseen by ETA. The DVOP and LVER staff, whose 

positions are funded by VETS, are part of states’ public employment 

services. 

Employment services fall under the purview of ETA, which administers 

the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services program, providing a 

national system of public employment services to any individual seeking 

employment—including a veteran—who is authorized to work in the 

United States. Thus, those veterans considered job ready and not in need

of intensive services from a DVOP could instead be served by employment 

service staff and receive such services as assessment, counseling, job 

readiness evaluation, and placement. Veterans would also be eligible to

receive WIA-funded services. Like VETS, ETA carries out its employment 

service program through staff in Labor’s six regions and workforce 

agencies in each state. In fiscal year 2005, ETA requested about $700 

million for the Wagner-Peyser program. 

 5

 The other grant programs and services administered by VETS are the Homeless Veterans

Reintegration Program, Veterans Workforce Investment Program, Transition Assistance 

Program, and National Veterans’ Training Institute. 

Page 7 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
The DVOP and LVER programs, along with the Employment Services 

program, are all mandatory partners in the one-stop center system created 

in 1998 by WIA and overseen by Labor, in which services provided by 

numerous employment and training programs are made available through

a single network. JVA requires that veterans be given priority of service in

any job training program administered by Labor. This requirement affects 

23 Labor-funded workforce programs, including WIA and Wagner-Peyser 

Employment Services. Labor’s guidance requires states to modify their 

strategic plans for workforce investment for the next 2 years, addressing 

how veterans will be given priority and how veterans’ services will be 

provided through the state’s one-stop service delivery system. 

Labor’s implementation of JVA has been on track, with most provisions in 

place within the first 2 years of the new legislation. For example, Labor 

timely implemented new roles and responsibilities for veterans’ staff as 

well as the new funding formula for allocating grant funds to states. 

However, Labor’s implementation is still pending for provisions designed 

to give veterans priority for participating in all Labor’s training programs, 

govern federal contractor hiring practices, and improve states’

accountability for increasing veterans’ employment. States also report 

good progress in implementing provisions, but challenges remain in some 

local areas in terms of integrating veterans’ staff with other staff in local 

workforce centers and establishing incentive programs as provided in JVA 

for recognizing quality services to veterans. 

Labor has taken actions to implement most JVA provisions to reform 

veterans’ services since the law was enacted in November 2002. For 

example, Labor has issued guidance clarifying the new roles and 

responsibilities for veterans’ staff, and has established criteria in 

regulation, to implement the new funding formula for allocating grant 

funds to states. (See table 2.) Additional Labor actions may be needed to 

ensure progress in implementing other JVA provisions. These include 

issuance of regulations requiring recent federal contractors to list job 

openings and report on their veterans hiring practices, and development of

a national standard for veteran employment, needed to complete its new 

performance accountability system for states. 

Most JVA Provisions 

Have Been Carried 

Out, but Not without 

Some Challenges 

Labor Is Generally on 

Track in Implementing 

Most JVA Provisions 

Page 8 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Table 2: Summary of Labor’s Completed and Planned Actions to Implement Selected JVA Provisions, as of December 2005 

Provision Labor’s completed actions Labor’s planned actions 

Prior to JVA 

Veterans’ staff roles and responsibilities • VETS issued first of several guidance letters in 

September 2002. National Veterans’ Training Institute 

subsequently began conducting training on JVA 

provisions for veterans’ staff in 2003. 

• Updates will occur as 

necessary. 

JVA Enacted November 7, 2002 

First full program year following JVAa

Performance accountability • VETS issued a guidance letter on new performance 

measures in July 2003. 

• Labor anticipates that it will 

be 2007 before it can 

establish a national standard 

that states must meet for 

veterans entering 

employment. 

Priority of service • ETA issued its first guidance letter for 15 programs in 

September 2003. 

• Two of three other Labor 

agencies plan to issue 

guidance for their programs. 

National Hire Veterans Committee • Secretary of Labor began appointing members in 2003. • None 

First full fiscal year following JVAb

State grant funding • VETS allocated grants to states phased in over a 2-

year period beginning fiscal year 2004. 

• None 

Incentive awards • VETS allocated incentive award funds to states 

beginning in fiscal year 2004.

• None 

Second full fiscal year following JVA 

Federal contractors • VETS and Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Program (OFCCP) drafted regulations on contractor 

affirmative action, job listings, and reporting 

requirements. 

• VETS and OFCCP 

anticipate issuing 

regulations in early 2006. 

Source: GAO analysis of JVA provisions and Labor information. 

a

Program year 2003 was the first full program year under JVA and ran from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 

2004. 

b

Fiscal year 2004 was the first full fiscal year under JVA and ran from October 1, 2003, to September 

30, 2004. 

VETS took several steps to prepare veterans’ staff for their new roles and 

responsibilities under the law. VETS issued guidance and held training 

classes, but officials cite challenges in providing all staff with training on 

their new roles and responsibilities because of resource limitations on the 

number of classes. VETS took action in September 2002, before JVA was 

enacted, to issue guidance for DVOP and LVER staff, and directed the 

National Veterans’ Training Institute (NVTI) to design training seminars to 

Staff Roles and Responsibilities 

Page 9 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
facilitate state and local implementation in the next program year.6

 The 

initial VETS guidance, updated in later years, explained how the DVOP 

staff roles and responsibilities were to transition to exclusively focus on 

intensive services and outreach to veterans, while LVER staff were to 

exclusively focus on outreach to employers and community organizations, 

training other staff on veterans’ issues, and quarterly reporting on 

compliance with the law. Subsequent guidance issued in July 2005 

discussed, among other topics, the flexibility states have under JVA to 

decide number of DVOP and LVER staff hired on a full-time or part-time 

basis. The later guidance also instructed each workforce area to report 

quarterly on veterans’ services. Almost three-quarters of the 50 state 

workforce officials reported on our survey that the quality of Labor’s 

formal written guidance and technical assistance was good or excellent in

terms of facilitating implementation of new staff duties. (See fig. 1.) 

Conversely, no more than a dozen states characterized the guidance and 

assistance as fair or poor. 

 6

 VETS issued guidance based in part on House bill H.R. 4015, which contained provisions 

that VETS believed would be enacted in the new legislation. 

Page 10 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Figure 1: State Workforce Administrators with Positive Comments on the Quality of Labor’s Guidance and Assistance on New

Roles for Veterans’ Staff 

0 10 20 30 40 50

DVOP responsibilities focused on outreach/intensive 

services to veterans, including case management 

LVER responsibilities focused

on outreach to employers

LVER responsibilities focused on educating

other providers on veterans' services

Provision

Number of states

Formal written guidance

Formal technical assistance

Source: Responses to GAO survey by 50 state workforce administrators.

Shortly after JVA was enacted, Labor’s training institute held a series of 

implementation seminars that were attended by representatives from all 

states. The institute continues to conduct and fund training for DVOP and 

LVER staff. At the end of its first training year in October 2004, the 

institute reported having trained 282 DVOP staff in case management. 

Similarly, at the end of its second training year in 2005, the institute 

reported that 240 LVER staff were trained in employer outreach. NVTI 

estimated that an additional 144 DVOP and 240 LVER staff would be 

trained in these two courses each year in the future, but had concerns that 

these numbers would cover only about 16 percent of all veterans’ staff 

each year, while annual staff turnover was averaging about 18 percent. 

Training institute officials estimated that 48 additional sessions would be 

required to meet the needs of all staff in these two course offerings in 

addition to the 80 training sessions planned for veterans’ staff over the 

institute’s 5-year contract period. 

Page 11 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
VETS officials confirmed a need for expanded training opportunities but 

said that their authority to reallocate resources to NVTI is limited.7

 Overall, 

state and local workforce officials were pleased with the quality of NVTI 

training. For example, a DVOP in a one-stop center in California found that 

NVTI classes provided a valuable opportunity to network and exchange 

ideas with other participants from around the country. In a survey 

comment, a state administrator also said that the NVTI Web site has been

useful in helping the state keep up with all aspects of JVA implementation 

and that the state makes extensive use of NVTI’s electronic discussion 

board to communicate with other states. 

VETS began using JVA’s method for allocating DVOP and LVER grant 

funds to states in the fiscal year beginning in October 2003. Under JVA, the 

previously separate DVOP and LVER grants were merged into one grant 

for veterans’ staff, and states are now required to submit an application for 

funding containing a plan describing how the state will furnish the 

required employment, training and placement services, the veteran 

population to be served, and any additional information Labor may 

require. Labor was to award funds proportionately to the states with 

approved applications, based on a ratio of the total number of veterans 

residing in the state that are seeking employment to the total number of 

veterans seeking employment in all states using criteria that Labor may 

establish in regulation. JVA required Labor to phase in this new method of 

providing funding to the states and provided that it may establish 

minimum funding levels and hold harmless criteria for the states. 

Funding Formula 

VETS issued a final rule establishing criteria for making funds available for 

veterans’ employment services. It reserved up to 4 percent of the grant 

money available for unexpected needs and transition assistance programs8

 7

National Veterans’ Training Institute is funded as a separate line item in the VETS budget, 

limiting VETS’ authority to reprogram funds among its accounts to $500,000, according to a 

VETS official. 

8

The Transition Assistance Program was established to ease the transition of separating 

service members and their spouses from military service to the civilian workforce. During

3-day workshops conducted at selected military installations nationwide, participants learn 

about job searches, career decision making, current occupational and labor market 

conditions, résumé writing, and interviewing techniques. In fiscal year 2005, VETS

allocated $2.5 million to 40 states for the provision of 3,048 workshops. 

Page 12 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
and allocated grants to states using the new formula prescribed by law.9

During the first 2 years of the required 3-year phase-in period, states were 

provided with (1) a hold harmless rate of no less than 80 percent of its 

previous year’s allocation during fiscal year 2005 and 90 percent 

thereafter, and (2) a minimum funding level of 0.28 percent of the prior 

year’s total funding level for all states. For example, the minimum funding 

level for fiscal year 2004 was $439,000 ($156,811,000 x .0028). Under the 

new formula, 4 states received about the same amount of funding, while 31 

states received a decrease of 5 percent or more and 16 states received at 

least a 5 percent increase between fiscal years 2003 and 2005. (See app. II 

for state funding allocations.) 

VETS issued guidance in May 2003 for an incentive award program to be 

implemented by states in the first fiscal year after JVA. This guidance laid 

out eligibility and selection criteria and examples of nonmonetary awards, 

giving states flexibility to tailor their awards programs. JVA required that

states establish an incentive program to recognize eligible employees for 

excellence or demonstrable improvement in the provision of employment, 

training, and placement services. Under JVA, Labor is to establish criteria, 

in consultation with the states, to be used by the states in setting up the 

required incentive program. The law provides further that the form of 

incentive award may be either a cash or a nonfinancial award, as Labor 

may specify. The act provided that beginning in program years during or 

after fiscal year 2004, 1 percent of the annual grant funds is to be used for 

making cash awards under the state’s incentive award program. 

Incentive Awards Program 

In accordance with JVA, VETS mandated that 1 percent of each state’s 

grant amount be used for incentive payments to staff. In total, VETS 

allocated about $1.5 million for the incentive program in fiscal years 2004 

and 2005. Of this amount, states used about $600,000 (40 percent) during 

the first year of implementation, and VETS officials stated that the 

remaining unexpended funds were returned to the Treasury. In addition, 

 9

The ratio of the total number of job-seeking veterans residing in the state to the total 

number of job-seeking veterans in all states is best determined using data collected through 

the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS),

both of which are administered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The LAUS data are 

considered to be the most reliable source of the number of unemployed persons in the 

civilian labor force, while the CPS data are considered to be the most reliable source of the

number of veterans in the civilian labor force. BLS officials said that these two data 

sources provide the most meaningful and reliable data on veterans seeking employment at

the state level, and that using a 3-year average to calculate the funding formula will 

stabilize the effect of annual fluctuations in the data and, consequently, in the amounts 

allocated annually to states. 

Page 13 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
VETS does not anticipate returning any incentive funds to the Treasury in 

2005. Instead, VETS informed Congress that any unspent funds will be 

reallocated to the DVOP and LVER programs, according to officials. (See 

app. III for state incentive program allocation and expenditures in fiscal 

year 2004.) 

Labor has only partially implemented the JVA requirement to give priority 

service to veterans in its many employment training programs. JVA added 

a new section to Title 38 on priority to veterans and spouses of certain 

veterans in receiving employment and training services through Laborfunded programs. In that section, Labor is given authority to establish 

priorities among covered persons to take into account the needs of 

disabled veterans and special disabled veterans. This provision applies to

23 employment and training programs operated by five Labor agencies—

VETS, ETA, Women’s Bureau, Office of Disability Employment Policy, and 

the Bureau of International Labor Affairs. Veterans automatically receive 

priority of service in the five programs operated by VETS because these 

programs serve veterans exclusively. However, for programs that serve 

additional populations and are operated by other Labor agencies, priority 

of service for veterans is applied differently once veterans meet the 

programs’ eligibility requirements. For example, under ETA’s WagnerPeyser-funded Employment Services program, priority is to be given first 

to veterans and then to all others. By contrast, under ETA’s Senior 

Community Service Employment program, priority is given to low-income 

individuals who are first veterans and their qualified spouses aged 60 years 

or older; second, other individuals who are at least 60 years old; third, 

veterans and their qualified spouses who are 55 to 59 years old; and fourth, 

other individuals who are 55 to 59 years old. 

Priority of Service 

These Labor agencies are in different stages of providing guidance and 

reporting requirements for veterans’ service priority to the grantees of 

their respective programs. ETA, for example, was somewhat delayed in 

issuing an initial guidance letter for its 15 programs, notifying grantees of 

the law’s general requirements in September 2003, several months after 

the first program year following JVA began. Both the Women’s Bureau and 

the Office of Disability Employment Policy have included language on 

priority of service in their 2003 grant solicitations, but officials told us that 

they have not issued further guidance or established reporting

requirements. In addition, officials at the Bureau of International Labor 

Affairs said that their agency funds overseas projects for which veterans 

are not eligible, such as a project in Indonesia that focuses on the 

prevention of child labor.

Page 14 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Labor did not issue its required annual report to Congress for the first 

program year of JVA, and its report to Congress for program year 2004 

contained incomplete information regarding veterans’ priority among its 

training programs. JVA required Labor’s annual report to include three 

issues (1) whether veterans are receiving priority of service; (2) whether 

they are being fully served; and (3) whether the representation of veterans 

in programs is in proportion to their representation in the labor market. 

Labor did not collect and report data on the first two requirements for any 

of its programs, and information on the third requirement was incomplete. 

Of its 23 programs subject to the law’s requirement, Labor reported 

veterans’ participation rates for only 11 ETA programs. (See table 3.) ETA 

officials said that they were unable to collect data from participants in all

their programs because grantee data collection systems were not in place.

The data that Labor reported for 11 of its programs showed that veterans 

are essentially represented in proportion to their labor force participation 

rate of 9.5 percent in five ETA programs that were aimed at adult job 

seekers, while six programs fell short of the 9.5 percent target

participation rate. The report indicated that programs with lower veteran 

participation rates tended to be those least applicable to veterans, such as 

programs for migrant farm workers or youth. 

Table 3: Veterans’ Participation in ETA Programs for Adult Job Seekers, Program Year 2003 

ETA adult programs 

Number of

 veterans served

Veterans’ participation

 rate (percent)

Wagner-Peyser Employment Services 1,421,977 9.4

Trade Act 4,970 13.6

WIA Adults 31,588 7.1

WIA Dislocated Workers 34,943 9.6

Senior Community Services Employment, age 55 and up 10,853 10.1

America’s Job Bank 150,327 15.8

National Emergency Grants 3,013 10.5

H-1B Skills Grantsa 1,454 6.2

Native American 398 2.2

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker, adults 308 1.0

Job Corps 114 0.2

Total 1,659,945 9.7

Source: VETS 2004 annual report to Congress. 

a

Data collected and reported by 84.3 percent of H-1B grantees who were operational in 2004.

Page 15 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
VETS established some new performance measures for the DVOP and 

LVER grant programs, issuing guidance for state implementation 

beginning July 2003, but officials state that it will be at least 2007 before 

VETS can establish a national standard for employment outcomes that it 

will require all states to meet. Under JVA, Labor was required, by May 

2003, to establish and implement a comprehensive performance 

accountability system to measure the performance of employment service 

delivery systems, including disabled veterans’ outreach program 

specialists and local veterans’ employment representatives. The standards 

and measures in that system are supposed to be consistent with state 

performance measures under WIA and be appropriately weighted to 

provide special consideration for placement of veterans requiring 

intensive services and veterans who enroll in readjustment counseling. 

Additionally, Labor is required by JVA to issue regulations establishing a 

uniform national threshold entered-employment rate for veterans. As 

required by JVA, VETS based the new performance measures on those for 

WIA. In doing so, it dropped two process measures--number of veterans 

receiving counseling or some reportable service. It also added several 

others focused primarily on outcomes—employment rates following either 

staff-assisted or intensive services, and employment retention rate. (See 

table 4.) VETS officials told us they made additional modifications to the 

performance accountability system when, in July 2005, they adopted the 

Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) new common performance 

measures. Under this change, VETS established a new performance 

measure for individuals who got a job by comparing their earnings 

6 months before they enroll in a program with earnings 6 months after 

they exit the program. 

Performance Accountability

Page 16 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Table 4: Development of DVOP and LVER Performance Measures and Reporting Requirements 

Performance measure or reporting requirement 

Before program 

year 2002 

Program years 

2002 to 2004 Program year 2005

Entered employment rate X X X 

Number of veterans placed in training X 

Number of veterans receiving counseling X 

Number of veterans receiving some reportable service X 

Federal contractor jobs filled by Vietnam and special disabled 

veterans 

X

Employment rate following receipt of staff-assisted services X X 

Employment rate following receipt of intensive servicesaX X

Employment retention rate at 6 months X X 

Number of veterans placed in federal training X X 

Number of veterans placed in federal jobs X 

Number of veterans that entered into federal contractor jobs X X 

Earnings increase at 6 months X 

Source: Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, Department of Labor. 

a

Intensive services were formerly referred to as case management.

VETS officials said that they have changed the method they use to 

calculate the entered employment measure and collect source data.

Initially, VETS measured job placements that tracked whether a veteran

was referred to, hired, and retained in a specific job. With WIA’s 

enactment in 1998, VETS began tracking the entered-employment rate or 

percentage of all registered veterans who were placed in or obtained 

employment. However, states had different policies regarding how and 

when veterans were registered, resulting in inconsistent performance 

data.10 During this time, VETS also moved from a manual follow-up system 

to identify how many veterans obtained jobs to an automated system using 

unemployment insurance wage records.11 The resulting changes in state 

reporting systems have delayed the setting of a national standard for 

veterans’ employment. VETS anticipates that it will need at least 3 years 

under the OMB measures to collect the comparable trend data needed to 

 10Under the common measures, Labor plans to require one-stops to track all participants 

who walk through the door of a one-stop center and receive any one-stop service, 

regardless of which program provides the service. 

11GAO, Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment Services 

to Claimants, GAO-05-413 (Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005). 

Page 17 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
establish the national performance standard holding all states accountable 

to the same minimum goal for veterans entering employment. In the 

interim, VETS issued guidance in May 2004 on how it would negotiate

individual performance goals with states. These goals ranged from 38 to 65

percent in program years 2004 and 2005. (See app. IV.) 

Approximately 15 months passed as the Secretary of Labor appointed 

members to the President’s National Hire Veterans Committee, and these 

members worked with a contractor to begin the national campaign to 

make employers and businesses more aware of veterans through the 

public workforce system. 

National Hire Veterans 

Committee

JVA provided for the establishment of the National Hire Veterans 

Committee, whose purpose is to furnish information to employers with 

respect to the training and skills of veterans and disabled veterans, and the 

advantages to employers of hiring veterans with such training and skills 

and to facilitate employment of veterans and disabled veterans through 

participation in America’s Career Kit national labor exchange and other 

means. The Secretary of Labor is required to appoint the 15 members of 

the committee and the chairman. Labor is required to submit a report to 

Congress on the activities of the committee annually for 2003, 2004, and 

2005. The report is to contain data concerning the placement and retention 

of veterans in jobs attributable to the activities of the committee. 

Labor initiated action during the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 

2003 by appointing the 15 committee members from the various public and 

private organizations required by law. Starting in February 2004, the 

committee held the first of its required quarterly meetings in Washington,

D.C., and held nearly all of its six subsequent meetings in various parts of 

the country in order to increase media coverage. The meetings allow 

committee members to monitor activities, develop strategies, and hold 

public forums on veterans’ employment issues. 

The committee also hired a contractor in 2004 to carry out a national 

campaign to promote the hiring of veterans and to inform veteran job 

seekers of the public workforce resources available to them. The 

campaign included a Web site,12 activated in October 2004, which offered 

an electronic clearinghouse to facilitate a match between employers and 

veteran job-seekers and help veterans conduct their job searches. The 

 12The Web site can be found at http://www.hirevetsfirst.gov. 

Page 18 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
campaign has run magazine advertisements in Business Week and HR 

Magazine (the magazine for the Society of Human Resource Management) 

and posted banner ads on electronic job boards that targeted private 

sector employers, advising them to recruit veterans through one-stop 

centers. Finally, the committee persuaded 44 state governors to proclaim a 

“Hire Vets First” month to demonstrate state support. 

Although JVA authorized $3 million a year for the committee’s activities, 

according to a committee official, these funds were not appropriated and

funds were drawn from VETS’ administrative budget instead. The 

committee has projected that its cumulative total expenditures will be 

about $2.2 million through fiscal year 2005. Contract services, which 

account for approximately 60 percent of expenditures, are predominately 

for implementing the national campaign and associated marketing and

media activities. (See fig. 2.) 

Figure 2: Allocation of Projected Total Expenditures of the President’s National Hire 

Veterans Committee through Fiscal Year 2005 

7%

60%

14%

19%

Administrative

Travel

Contract services

Regional marketing representatives

Source: President’s National Hire Veterans Commitee.

Page 19 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
A majority of the state workforce administrators reported on our survey 

that the committee’s promotional activities have been beneficial to some 

degree in helping veterans get jobs. (See fig. 3.) 

Figure 3: Extent to Which the Committee’s Promotional Activities Have Benefited 

Veterans in Obtaining Employment 

0 5 10 15 20 25

Too early to say

A little beneficial or

not beneficial at all

Moderately beneficial

Generally or very

greatly beneficial

Number of states

Source: Responses to GAO survey by 50 state workforce administrators.

Labor has not yet issued updated regulations for federal contractors with 

regard to affirmative action in hiring veterans, although Labor officials 

said they plan to issue regulations in 2006. As with the prior Title 38 

provision, under JVA, federal contractors are to (1) implement affirmative 

action in employing qualified veterans, (2) list their employment openings 

with the appropriate employment service delivery system, and (3) submit 

an annual report on their hiring and employment of qualified veterans. 

However, JVA amended the Title 38 provision by raising the dollar amount 

of covered contracts from $25,000 to $100,000 and by modifying the 

categories of veterans to which this provision applies by creating a new 

definition of “covered veteran.” In addition, the law added another 

reporting requirement to the annual report, providing that contractors 

must report the total number of all current employees in each job category 

and at each hiring location. JVA provides that these amendments apply to

contractors with federal contracts of $100,000 or more entered into on or 

after December 1, 2003. 

Federal Contractors 

As under the prior Title 38 provision, JVA requires Labor to issue 

regulations implementing these requirements. Labor has not yet issued 

updated regulations, but VETS officials said that Labor plans to issue 

regulations that would, among other things, clarify the new categories of 

covered veterans. In the meantime, Labor has issued guidance stating that 

Page 20 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
contractors receiving contracts before December 1, 2003, are subject to 

existing regulations and reporting categories of veterans. For contracts 

awarded on or after December 1, 2003, of $100,000 or more, the guidance 

states that contractors are not required to file the annual report until VETS 

has completed its regulatory clearance process and new regulations are 

published implementing the changes made by JVA. 

Two Labor agencies are responsible for issuing regulations covering these 

requirements—VETS and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs (OFCCP)—but action has been delayed because of a lack of 

consensus and coordination within Labor on how to implement and 

enforce them, according to officials. On the basis of their experience,

VETS officials were concerned about the feasibility and usefulness of the 

contractor requirements. They said that there is no central repository of 

contractors to identify which ones are subject to the requirements, that the 

reporting requirements are burdensome for employers, and they are not 

relevant in evaluating the program’s effectiveness. Further, VETS officials 

said that they lack enforcement authority over contractors that do not 

comply. Instead, OFCCP has this authority. 

VETS has nevertheless drafted regulations requiring contractors to report 

on their veteran hiring practices, and OFCCP has drafted regulations 

concerning affirmative action and job listings. Pending OMB approval, 

they will be issued in early 2006, according to Labor officials. Advocates 

from veterans service organizations believe that regulations are necessary 

to ensure federal contractor compliance, and state workforce 

administrators from 18 states agree—reporting that half or fewer local 

workforce offices had been able to increase the number of federal 

contractor jobs they could list and fill since JVA was enacted. 

States Report Good 

Progress Implementing 

JVA, but Challenges 

Remain in Certain States 

and Local Areas 

State workforce agency administrators report good progress in 

implementing JVA provisions, but challenges remain in certain states and 

local areas. During the first year of JVA implementation, state workforce 

agencies were required to transition veterans’ staff to their new roles and 

responsibilities, establish the incentive program to enhance staff 

performance, and implement priority of service to veterans in Labor 

training programs. The majority of state workforce administrators 

reported that three-fourths or more of local offices had transitioned 

veterans’ staff to their new roles through greater focus on intensive 

services and employer outreach. (See fig. 4.) State administrators also 

reported the most progress in providing electronic services to veterans 

Page 21 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
and least progress in establishing incentive programs for improving 

service to veterans. 

Figure 4: State Actions to Implement JVA in more than 75 Percent of Local Offices or One-Stop Centers, as of October 2005 

0 10 20 30 40 50

Performance incentive awards

for DVOP, LVER, or other staff

Greater LVER focus on

outreach to employers

Greater LVER focus on educating

other providers on veterans’ services

Greater priority of service being provided 

for veterans in all Labor training programs

Greater DVOP focus on outreach 

or intensive services to veterans

Greater electronic access

to services for veterans

Number of states

Source: Responses to GAO survey by 50 state workforce administrators.

The majority of state workforce administrators reported that veterans’ 

staff had transitioned to a greater focus on intensive services and 

employer outreach in most local offices. However, a minority reported 

using JVA’s flexibility to establish part-time13 veterans’ staff positions. 

Also, integration of veterans’ staff into the one-stop centers was still 

problematic in some offices. Our survey data showed that 22 states had 

part-time DVOP staff, 33 used part-time LVER staff, and 17 had part-time 

positions for both types of staff. (See app. V for information on states’ use 

of full- and part-time veterans’ staff.) VETS officials from several states we 

visited told us that having the flexibility to use part-time DVOP and LVER 

staff allowed the state to provide veterans’ services in more locations and 

reach more veterans in the community, including those in remote rural 

areas. However, some other state and local workforce officials told us that 

part-time staffing could, in some cases, hamper service to veterans, 

Staff Roles and Responsibilities 

 13 Labor’s guidance defines part-time DVOP and LVER positions as half-time positions. 

Page 22 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
particularly if more than 50 percent of such time were devoted to 

performing office duties such as staffing the reception desk and answering 

the phone. 

The use of part-time veterans’ staff was limited. For example, just over half

of the states reported not using any part-time DVOP staff in their local 

offices, and over a quarter did not use any part-time LVERs. (See fig. 5.) 

One reason may be lack of guidance in this area. About one-quarter (12 

states) of state workforce administrators responding to our survey 

characterized Labor’s guidance and technical assistance for making 

effective use of part-time veterans’ staff as fair or poor. 

Figure 5: Use of Part-Time Veterans’ Staff in Local Offices 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Use of part-time 

(half-time) LVER staff

Use of part-time 

(half-time) DVOP staff

Staff

Number of states

Not implemented at all

1-50 percent of offices

51-100 percent of offices

Source: Responses to GAO survey by 50 state workforce administrators.

Finally, Labor officials said that integrating veterans’ staff into the onestop offices has been a persistent challenge and can hinder services to 

veterans. According to the DVOP and LVER staff we interviewed, the 

degree of their integration has varied widely in local areas and has 

depended on the level of support from the one-stop managers of veterans’

programs. For example, one DVOP staff member we interviewed told us 

that the veterans’ program is highly integrated with the WIA program in 

Page 23 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
her local one-stop, with both DVOP and WIA staff sharing case 

management responsibilities for veterans. In addition, she participates in 

regular meetings with the other one-stop partners. She attributed this 

cohesion to her manager’s commitment to work cooperatively with all the 

partners. In contrast, a DVOP staff member from another state told us that 

his manager sometimes resented veterans’ staff because they do not serve

nonveteran clients or help with other one-stop activities. 

Another reason cited by veterans’ staff for poor levels of integration was 

that other one-stop staff members were not educated or trained to serve 

veterans. In addition, Labor’s guidance and technical assistance to 

integrate veterans’ staff within the one-stop was ranked only fair or poor 

by more than one-quarter of state workforce administrators responding to

our survey. Some states have taken action to mitigate the challenges. Ohio

workforce officials, for example, requested the National Veterans’ Training 

Institute to come to their state and conduct orientation training for all onestop partners, identifying the training as a best practice, in part to address 

integration challenges. Individual one-stop centers in such states as Ohio 

and California have also taken steps to enhance integration. They have 

cross-trained other partner staff on serving veterans and veterans’ staff 

may potentially conduct orientation and job search workshops for mixed 

groups of job-seekers that included veterans. 

Nationwide, 32 of the 50 state workforce administrators we surveyed 

reported implementing an incentive awards program for veterans’ 

services. Incentives were perceived by some as effective in improving 

veterans’ services in the state. For example, administrators in 16 states 

with award programs in place reported that their program had a positive 

effect on improving or modernizing veterans’ services. The remaining 7 

administrators either said that their incentive programs had no effect and 

8 believed it was still too early to say. Although most states had included 

other one-stop partners in their incentive award programs, at least 10 

respondents reported that the incentive program either had no effect on

improving staffs’ performance, morale, or integration with veteran’s staff 

or that it was too early to tell. (See fig. 6.) 

Incentive Awards Program 

Page 24 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Figure 6: Effect of Incentive Award Program on Staff Integration, Morale, and Performance 

Operations area

Number of states

0 10 20 30 40

Morale of DVOP or LVER staff 

Performance of DVOP or LVER staff

Morale of other staff 

Integration of DVOP and LVER staff into the

local office or one-stop

Performance of other staff 

Generally positive or very positive effect 

No effect

Too early to say 

Source: GAO survey responses from 50 state workforce administrators.

In the five states we visited, VETS and workforce officials told us the 

incentive program was a good concept. However, not all had implemented 

the program. In fact, 17 states have reported not implementing the 

incentive program.14 For example, California has cited state laws 

prohibiting monetary or other gifts to employees for performing their 

duties. In Alaska, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, the 2005 state 

plans indicated that performance incentive awards were incompatible 

with the states’ collective bargaining agreements. Idaho, on the other 

hand, cited potential morale problems among nonveteran staff with 

limited opportunities to serve veterans and was exploring other options 

for creating incentives. VETS officials said that they withhold the 

incentive program money from states that do not implement the program. 

 14 These states were Alaska, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, 

Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. While the survey respondent from Montana did 

not report information for this question, the state’s fiscal year 2005 plan notes that Montana 

will not implement an incentive program. Collectively, these states accounted for about

$526,000 (34 percent) of incentive award funding in fiscal year 2005. 

Page 25 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
States that implemented the incentive program have made awards in 

different ways. In one state, a one time cash award of $1,000 was divided 

among all one-stop staff, amounting to as little as $16 each. By contrast, 

some DVOP staff told us that in another state, individuals received as 

much as $4,000 each. Incentives for staff in one state we visited were 

based on nominations by supervisors using performance data, while 

supervisors in another state were relying on staff to nominate themselves. 

VETS officials told us that some states had been more successful than 

others in designing their awards program and acknowledged it would be 

beneficial to disseminate their ideas and practices. 

Workforce administrators in 36 states reported that one-stop centers were 

giving priority of service to veterans entering Labor’s training programs. 

However, administrators from 11 other states reported that less than half 

of local offices were providing priority to veterans. Whether this has 

affected veterans’ ability to participate in these programs is not known. 

Only four state workforce administrators reported that waiting lists for 

Labor training programs impeded employment to a great or very great 

extent. In contrast, the other 46 state administrators reported waiting lists 

were a factor to a lesser extent, so that veterans would not necessarily 

have to be prioritized over other job seekers. 

Priority of Service 

If training resources were to fall short of demand, however, Labor’s 

guidance would be insufficient for determining who would receive service 

priority, according to some local one-stop officials we met with. 

Moreover, a 2004 Urban Institute study conducted for Labor reported that 

employment services staff need more training on how to implement 

priority of service across programs.15 ETA issued specific program 

guidance to states on its Web site in 2004, but some workforce officials 

were not aware that ETA had posted additional guidance, and other 

officials still found ETA’s guidance confusing and incomplete. ETA 

officials told us that they do not plan to issue any further guidance until

WIA is reauthorized, at which time they plan to respond to all state 

feedback by issuing a consolidated document for all their training 

programs. However, it is not known when WIA will be reauthorized or 

when the consolidated guidance will be issued. ETA officials said that 

until then, they would work to educate service delivery staff by means of 

national conferences and promotional activities at the one-stop centers 

about how to give priority to veterans. 

 15 The Urban Institute, Strategies for Implementing Priority of Service to Veterans in

Department of Labor Programs (Washington, D.C.: 2004). 

Page 26 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
According to VETS data we examined, 46 states have met their negotiated

goals for veterans’ employment outcomes under the DVOP program and 42 

states have met similar goals under the LVER program. While it is too 

early to determine whether or how JVA’s reforms are responsible, most 

state workforce administrators we surveyed believed that the reforms 

have improved the quality of services to veterans, including disabled 

veterans, and have improved their employment outcomes. They credited

the greater availability of case management services under JVA for much 

of the improvement in employment. State administrators reported, on the 

other hand, that federal contractor failure to list job openings at the local

one-stop centers was most likely to delay or prevent some employment. 

Aside from the new law, administrators considered some non-JVA factors 

as significant for veterans’ employment success, including the willingness 

of employers to hire veterans and the strength of the local job market. 

State Administrators 

Reported 

Improvement in

Veterans’ Services and 

Employment 

Outcomes 

In their responses to our survey, many state workforce administrators 

associated JVA reforms with improvements. Overall, 33 of the 50 state 

workforce administrators reported that veterans’ employment services 

have improved in their respective states since enactment of the law. They 

most often reported that DVOPs were spending more time on case 

management since JVA, although somewhat fewer states reported that 

services to disabled veterans had similarly improved. (See fig. 7.) 

Page 27 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Figure 7: Improvements in Services to Veterans since JVA Was Enacted

0 10 20 30 40 50

DVOP staff are spending more

time on case management 

Quality of case management and other

 intensive services has improved

Electronic access to services for veterans

 through the Internet has increased

LVER staff are spending more

time on outreach to employers

Veterans receive greater 

priority of referral to jobs

Services provided to disabled 

veterans have improved 

Number of states

Source: Responses to GAO survey by 50 state workforce administrators.

Regarding actual employment results, 33 state workforce administrators 

also reported improvement. These respondents attributed the 

improvement both to the law’s reforms and to other factors. The reform 

cited most often as helping veterans obtain employment was the increased

availability of case management or other intensive services through the 

DVOP program (39 states). (See fig. 8.) The reform least cited was the 

requirement to give priority to veterans in referrals to federal contractor 

jobs. Only 22 state administrators said it had improved outcomes. Beyond 

the reforms themselves, administrators said veterans’ employment was 

influenced by employer willingness or desire to hire veterans and by the 

strength of the local job market. They reported that employment was also 

influenced by the transferability of veterans’ existing skills to other jobs. 

Page 28 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Figure 8: Factors That Assisted Veterans in Obtaining Employment 

0 10 20 30 40 50

Robust job market in local area

More employers listing available jobs

 at local one-stops or local offices

Veterans’ existing job skills were 

transferable to other jobs

Veterans’ skills matched credentials needed

for available positions

Greater willingness or desire to hire veterans

Priority of referral for federal contractor jobs

Priority of service in Labor training programs

Outreach to new employers by LVER staff 

Increase in availability of case management or 

other intensive services by DVOP staff 

Number of states

JVA reforms

Other factors

Source: Responses to GAO survey by 50 state workforce administrators.

State workforce administrators also reported what they viewed as 

obstacles to employing veterans. Specifically, lack of federal contractor 

listing of job openings, as required under law, was most likely to delay or

prevent employment. (See fig. 9.) Other obstacles, such as veterans not 

receiving priority of referral for federal contractor jobs and waiting lists 

for training programs, were cited less than half as often. Non-JVA factors 

also presented obstacles to employment, the most frequent one being a 

poor local job market. This factor was cited nearly more than twice as 

often as other factors, such as non-transferability of veterans’ skills to 

available jobs or employer reluctance to hire veterans with National Guard 

or Reserve commitments. 

Page 29 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Figure 9: Factors That Delayed or Prevented Veterans from Obtaining Employment 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Employers not listing available jobs

at local offices or one-stops

Veterans’ skills did not match credentials

needed for available positions

Reluctance of employers to hire veterans with 

possible National Guard and Reserve commitments

Veterans’ skills were not 

transferable to available jobs

Poor job market in local area 

Veterans not receiving priority 

of referral for federal contractor jobs

Waiting list for Labor training programs

Federal contractors not listing

available jobs at local offices or one-stops

Number of states

Other factors

JVA reforms

Source: Responses to GAO survey from 50 state workforce administrators.

While VETS directors in 26 states reported that their monitoring role had

strengthened local performance accountability, the remainder reported no 

effect or a negative effect. In our survey, 21 state VETS directors reported 

that key veterans employment data are not collected at the local level or

available through other means. Performance accountability is also 

weakened by the lack of coordinated oversight among Labor agencies 

responsible for implementing JVA reforms and by the absence of a 

strategy for using monitoring results to improve program performance and 

help states that lag behind. 

Absence of Local 

Level Data and Lack 

of Coordinated 

Oversight Weaken 

Program 

Accountability 

Page 30 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Under JVA, states took on greater responsibility for assessing their own 

performance, and while VETS modified its monitoring practices in 

response, the unavailability of local level performance data in many states 

has limited federal oversight and weakened local level accountability. 

Prior to JVA, the law required VETS directors to annually review every 

local employment service office or one-stop center where DVOP or LVER 

staff were located. Since JVA’s enactment, however, VETS directors 

review states’ own assessments of performance and are required to visit 

each local office once every 5 years. VETS completed its first round of 

monitoring in 2004 using four primary review tools: 

Unavailability of 

Performance Data at Many 

Local Offices Weakens 

Accountability 

• State JVA plans for compliance with program requirements; 

• Annual state self-assessments to ensure the approved state plan is 

being effectively implemented, determine the state’s progress toward 

meeting its performance goals, identify technical assistance and 

training needs, and identify best practices; 

• State quarterly performance and management reports on veterans’ 

services and employment outcomes; and 

• Annual site visits to 20 percent of local offices within each state to 

validate information in self-assessments. 

State VETS directors responding to our survey most often reported that 

their monitoring role under JVA has had a positive effect on local 

accountability. (See fig. 10.) Specifically, 27 state directors reported their 

monitoring role had a positive effect on local accountability. However, 19 

directors reported their monitoring role either had no effect or a negative 

effect on local accountability. 

Page 31 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Figure 10: Extent That VETS’ New Monitoring Role Strengthened Performance

Accountability at the Local Level 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

No effect at all

Negative effect

Positive effect

Effect

Number of states

Source: Responses to GAO survey by Labor’s 46 Directors of Veterans Employment and Training Services.

Some monitoring approaches were regarded as more effective than others. 

The most beneficial were analysis and use of data captured in states’ 

performance reports, along with on-site reviews of local offices. (See 

fig. 11.) For example, more than half of 51 state VETS directors said that 

analyzing the performance reports had improved accountability. Cited by 

only 15 directors, state self-assessments were considered the least 

beneficial tool. Respondents from the remaining states reported that their

monitoring activities had little to no effect--or had a negative effect--on 

performance accountability. 

Page 32 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Figure 11: Extent to Which VETS’ Monitoring Tools Strengthened Performance Accountability

0 10 20 30 40 50

VETS’ analysis and use of performance

data captured in the VETS 200 report

On-site reviews of a sample 

of local offices or one-stops

Desk review of JVA state plans of service 

Desk reviews of state self-assessments

Method

Number of states

Source: Responses to GAO survey by Labor’s 51 Directors of Veterans Employment and Training Services.

Contributes to strengthened or improved accountability to a moderate, great, or very great extent

Contributes to strengthened or improved accountability to little or no extent

Has a negative effect 

Despite the reported benefits of analyzing performance data reports and 

visiting local offices, however, data were not always available to help 

monitor local offices, limiting federal oversight and weakening local level

accountability. For example, VETS directors in 21 states noted that VETS 

200 performance data were not available at the local level. In these states, 

federal oversight of local office performance may be limited to the on-site

monitoring visits required once every 5 years. 

Lack of Coordinated 

Oversight among Labor 

Agencies also Weakens 

Accountability 

Labor’s several agencies responsible for carrying out JVA reforms have not 

coordinated their monitoring activities to ensure consistent and timely 

oversight, or used information collected through their monitoring to help 

states in greatest need of assistance. For example, the five Labor 

agencies16 operating the 23 training programs required to provide service 

priority to veterans did not work together to determine what type of 

 16The five Labor agencies are Employment and Training Administration, Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service, Women’s Bureau, Office of Disability Employment 

Policy, and Bureau of International Labor Affairs.

Page 33 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
oversight would be needed to ensure that grantees comply with the law. 

Nor have they established common reporting requirements.17

Similarly, the two Labor agencies responsible for implementing federal 

contractor requirements have not coordinated their monitoring efforts, 

despite VETS’ limited enforcement authority. VETS collects reports from 

federal contractors on their veteran hiring and employment practices, but 

VETS officials told us that only the Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs (OFCCP) has enforcement authority. Thus, if a contractor fails 

to submit an annual report, VETS cannot take action against the 

contractor and must rely on OFCCP to address the issue during its 

compliance review. VETS directors in two states we visited said that 

coordination between the two agencies was lacking and they had seen

little evidence of monitoring and enforcement by the compliance office. 

Similarly, the lack of coordination between VETS and ETA has weakened

oversight of the DVOP and LVER programs. While VETS is responsible for 

monitoring both programs, ETA oversees other workforce programs that 

serve veterans and nonveterans, such as WIA and Wagner-Peyser 

Employment Services. However, the two agencies do not generally 

coordinate their monitoring activities or share the results. State VETS 

directors responding to our survey said that some coordination occurs 

between VETS and ETA when they review state plans for compliance with 

JVA and WIA, but it is less likely to occur during other types of monitoring

activities. Although about half of state VETS directors reported that they 

coordinated with ETA on reviewing state plans, only five said that they 

met with them to share the results and take joint action. (See fig. 12.) 

 17Some states have taken action to coordinate monitoring activities among programs. 

Louisiana state workforce officials, for example, established a two-person monitoring

division that reviews all aspects of veterans’ services, including whether they are receiving 

priority, regardless of which program serves them. Following the site visit, the monitoring

unit provides immediate training and technical assistance based on its findings. 

Page 34 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Figure 12: Methods Used to Coordinate Monitoring Activities between VETS and ETA 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Joint monitoring visits with ETA to local 

offices or one-stops

Joint analysis of ETA 9002 or VETS 200 reports

Joint approach with ETA to enforcing corrective

 actions resulting from monitoring

Meeting between VETS and ETA 

to share results of monitoring

Review of JVA state plan of service 

Review of WIA state plan of service

Number of states

Method used to coordinate with ETA

Source: Responses to GAO survey by Labor’s 51 Directors of Veterans Employment and Training Services.

Finally, VETS lacks a strategy for using the information it gathers in 

monitoring programs to improve performance across states and local 

areas, according to officials. While Labor has authority under JVA to 

provide technical assistance to states that are deficient in performance or 

need help, VETS has yet to begin addressing the significant variation in 

performance levels among states, as reflected by their widely divergent 

goals negotiated with VETS. For example, in program years 2004 and 2005, 

states’ negotiated goals for the rate at which veterans entered

employment, ranging from 38 to 65 percent, depending on past

performance, while Labor’s national employment goal for veterans was 58 

percent.18 Although more than half of the state goals were short of Labor’s 

target, nationally, VETS has not been proactive in determining why certain

states are falling behind and in targeting them for assistance. Decisions on 

how to support states remain with the individual state VETS directors who 

must work without the overview and insight of national information. 

 18Labor’s national goal applies to all programs that serve veterans and is distinct from the

JVA requirement to set a national minimum standard for veterans served by the DVOP and 

LVER programs. 

Page 35 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
The employment reforms under JVA represent a significant shift for 

veterans’ employment and training services, not only because they 

changed how services are provided through DVOP and LVER staff, but 

also because they provided more latitude to states in implementing the

law, allowing them to tailor service delivery to best meet the needs of their 

veteran job seekers. Our work suggests Labor and states are making 

steady progress in implementing most JVA provisions. However, the 

transition of DVOP and LVER roles and responsibilities, along with 

establishing and monitoring a new performance accountability system, 

may take years to achieve and fine-tune. For those states with an incentive

award program, the wide variation in methodology for awarding incentives 

suggests that states could benefit from strategies on how best to 

implement their programs. Similarly, strategies are needed to address the 

long-standing challenge states have faced in integrating veterans into their 

service delivery system. Without clear guidance, veterans’ service 

providers may work in isolation from other providers, hindering staff from 

leveraging the full array of resources available to assist veteran job 

seekers. In addition, if waiting lists for Labor training programs become 

more prevalent, clear guidance and reporting of how well programs are 

providing priority of service to veterans will become especially important. 

VETS questions the effectiveness of federal contractor reporting 

requirements and Labor has not yet issued updated regulations; yet states 

cite lack of contractor job listings as the most likely factor to limit 

employment opportunities for veterans. In the absence of Labor actions to

improve the ability of states and local areas to identify contractors who 

are subject to the requirement and enforce compliance, additional 

employment opportunities for veterans may be missed. 

Conclusions 

The flexibility states and localities have to implement JVA allows them to 

try innovative ways to best meet the needs of veterans in their area. By the 

same token, greater flexibility underscores the need for greater 

accountability to ensure that programs are on the right track in serving 

clients. Such accountability can be facilitated by robust monitoring and 

information systems at the state and local levels that can highlight areas in

which states and localities are lagging behind. Accountability can be 

hindered, however, by failure to tailor the type and intensity of monitoring 

to the relative strength or weakness of local offices and states, as well as 

differences in the availability of local level information. Similarly, in the 

absence of a coordinated approach to guiding and monitoring veterans’ 

services among Labor agencies, programs may not be consistently 

implementing JVA’s reforms or be held accountable for doing so. 

Page 36 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
To better ensure that Labor workforce programs are serving veterans as 

required by JVA, we recommend that Labor agencies collaborate to: 

• Provide states and local areas with clear guidance and assistance for 

providing priority of service for all veterans and integrating veterans’ 

staff into the one-stops or other workforce centers. 

• Disseminate best-practice information to states on methodologies to 

award meaningful performance incentives. 

• Monitor the extent to which all Labor workforce programs are 

providing priority of service to veterans. 

• Strategically use monitoring results to target guidance and technical 

assistance to states and local areas most in need of improved 

performance. 

To achieve results from JVA’s provisions regarding veteran hiring 

practices of federal contractors, Labor should issue regulations as soon as 

possible and explore effective methods of enforcement. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for its 

review and comment. Labor’s comments are reproduced in appendix VI. 

In its comments, Labor concurred with our findings and recommendations 

and noted that its two agencies with primary responsibility for 

employment assistance to veterans, VETS and ETA will be working 

together to better coordinate their efforts to assist veterans. Specifically, 

Labor concurred that additional actions are needed to better integrate 

veterans’ staff into one-stop centers, share best practices for awarding 

performance incentives, monitor priority of service for veterans, and use 

monitoring results to improve program performance. In addition, Labor 

said it would expedite issuing federal contractor regulations and explore 

effective methods of regulation enforcement. Further, while Labor 

generally concurred with our recommendation to provide clear guidance

and assistance for providing priority of service for veterans, Labor stated

that it believes priority of service has been implemented more fully than 

the report indicates, citing publication of guidance for 15 programs on its 

Web site and the launch of an initiative designed to raise awareness among 

veterans and one-stop center professionals. Our report discusses the 

extent of Labor’s actions in issuing guidance, but our assessment, as well 

as opinions from some state and local officials, is that Labor guidance on

priority of service for its 23 workforce training programs has been uneven

and sometimes insufficient. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 37 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. Copies will be 

made available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions 

about this report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who made major contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix VII. 

Sigurd R. Nilsen 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 

Page 38 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Methodology 

The objectives of this report were to determine (1) the implementation 

status of the key provisions and any associated challenges, (2) what is 

known about services and outcomes since the law’s enactment, and (3) 

how accountability has changed for the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach and 

Local Veterans’ Employment Representative programs. 

To address each of these objectives, we 

• conducted two Web-based surveys, the first one surveying all 50 states 

and the District of Columbia workforce administrators and the second 

surveying the Department of Labor’s Directors of Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Services (VETS) in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia; 

• conducted site visits to state workforce agencies and local employment 

offices and one-stop centers, as well as state Directors of VETS offices 

in five states; and 

• interviewed representatives of national organizations with expertise in 

the issues of veterans’ employment, including staff of the President’s 

National Hire Veterans Committee. 

More detailed information on each of these aspects is presented below. We

conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted auditing 

standards between January and November 2005.

Our survey of state workforce administrators as well as our survey of 

Directors of VETS addressed all three objectives and included questions 

about implementation of the Jobs for Veterans Act, its impact on 

services and outcomes, performance accountability, and monitoring. 

Survey Development and 

Implementation 

The surveys were developed based on knowledge obtained during our 

preliminary research. This included a review of pertinent literature and 

interviews with members and representatives of organizations that 

conduct research on and perform policy analysis of veterans’ employment 

issues and programs. We also conducted a site visit to the state workforce 

agency and the VETS office in the state of Washington to obtain an 

understanding of veterans’ employment programs and how the state uses 

them to increase employment among veterans. The surveys were pretested 

with cognizant state veterans’ employment officials and state Directors of 

VETS in Washington, Colorado, and North Carolina to determine whether 

respondents would understand the questions the way they were intended. 

Revisions were made to the surveys based on comments received during

the pretests. 

Page 39 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

We sent notifications of the Web-based survey in July 2005 and followed 

up with additional e-mail messages and telephone calls as necessary 

during August and September. In October, we closed data collection for 

both surveys. At that time, all Directors of VETS had responded to their 

survey and 50 of the 51 state workforce administrators had done so. (The 

District of Columbia did not complete the survey.) We did not

independently verify information obtained through the survey. 

Because we surveyed state workforce administrators and VETS directors 

in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, no sampling error is 

associated with our work. However, nonsampling error could figure into

any data collection effort and involves a range of issues that could affect 

data quality and introduce unwanted variability into the results. We took 

several steps to minimize nonsampling errors. For example, GAO survey 

methodologists and staff with subject matter expertise collaboratively 

designed both Web-based survey instruments. Each of the surveys was 

pretested in three states to ensure that the Web-based surveys were 

relevant, clear, complete, and easy to comprehend. To the extent possible,

we compared the responses we received on the surveys with our site visit 

observations. 

Data from the two Web-based surveys were converted into separate 

databases and analysis was performed. Finally, a second, independent 

analyst checked all computer analyses. 

To obtain a detailed understanding of the impact of the Jobs for Veterans 

Act on states and the activities of the Directors of VETS, we conducted 

visits to five states. We visited the state of Washington in the preliminary 

phase of our work and four other states—California, Florida, Louisiana, 

and Ohio—in a later phase. We selected these states on the basis of several 

criteria including geographic dispersion, range of sizes as determined by 

funding allocation, whether the state had implemented JVA’s incentive 

award program, and recommendations by Labor, veterans’ service 

organizations, and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies.

On the basis of these organizations’ recommendations, we then chose two 

local one-stop centers that were either far along in implementation or 

were facing some challenges. Our site visits at the state level included 

interviews with officials from the state workforce agency and VETS; at the 

local level, we interviewed one-stop management and staff, including 

veterans’ staff. 

Site Visits to State Workforce 

Agencies and Directors of 

VETS 

During each of these interviews, we used a standard interview protocol 

that enabled us to obtain more detailed—yet comparable—information 

Page 40 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

than states were able to provide in the survey. In our interviews with the

state workforce agency, we discussed the status of implementation of the

Jobs for Veterans Act, the incentive awards program, monitoring of local 

employment offices and one-stops for priority of service and the use of 

part-time DVOP and LVER staff. At the local offices, we discussed the 

implementation of the act, its impact on veterans’ employment, specific 

benefits the act achieved, and obstacles to the complete implementation of 

the act’s provisions. Finally, we interviewed Directors of VETS and their 

staff, discussing the changes in monitoring one-stops and local 

employment offices, the accountability of local offices and one-stops, and 

coordination between VETS and ETA. Our site visit work was conducted 

between April and August 2005. 

As part of our work, we reviewed pertinent literature and interviewed 

representatives of the following organizations: 

Other Work 

• National Veterans’ Training Institute in Denver, Colorado; 

• Veterans’ staff from 24 states attending the training institute;

• President’s National Hire Veterans Committee; 

• National Association of State Workforce Agencies; 

• The following Labor agencies: VETS, ETA, Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs, Women’s Bureau, Office of Disability 

Employment Policy, and Bureau of International Labor Affairs; and 

• The following veterans’ service organizations: Disabled American 

Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of 

the United States, and Vietnam Veterans of America. 

Page 41 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix II: Comparison of DVOP and LVER 

Grant Funding, Fiscal Years 2003 and 2005 

State 

2003 actual budget 

allocation (base)

2005 actual budget 

allocation (base) Percentage change

States receiving 5 percent or more increase in funding from 2003 to 2005 

Arizona $1,767,000 $2,929,000 66

Delaware 382,000 444,000 16

Florida 7,439,000 8,507,000 14

Georgia 3,219,000 4,336,000 35

Kansas 1,394,000 1,523,000 9

Kentucky 1,587,000 2,281,000 44

Louisiana 1,564,000 2,319,000 48

Mississippi 1,222,000 1,476,000 21

Nevada 1,239,000 1,299,000 5

New Jersey 3,275,000 3,927,000 20

North Carolina 3,984,000 4,722,000 19

South Carolina 1,854,000 2,467,000 33

Tennessee 2,313,000 3,206,000 39

Texas 9,393,000 11,602,000 24

Utah 881,000 1,042,000 18

Virginia 3,368,000 3,861,000 15

 

States receiving about the same amount of funding in 2003 and 2005 

California 18,114,000 17,749,000 -2

Colorado 2,520,000 2,625,000 4

Indiana 3,074,000 3,130,000 2

Washington 4,052,000 4,154,000 3

 

States receiving 5 percent or more decrease in funding from 2003 to 2005 

Alabama 2,438,000 2,316,000 -5

Alaska 687,000 520,000 -24

Arkansas 1,695,000 1,430,000 -16

Connecticut 2,963,000 1,904,000 -36

District of Columbia 475,000 444,000 -7

Hawaii 755,000 598,000 -21

Idaho 936,000 779,000 -17

Illinois 7,957,000 6,536,000 -18

Iowa 2,333,000 1,497,000 -36

Maine 1,040,000 763,000 -27

Appendix II: Comparison of DVOP and LVER 

Grant Funding, Fiscal Years 2003 and 2005 

Page 42 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix II: Comparison of DVOP and LVER 

Grant Funding, Fiscal Years 2003 and 2005 

State 

2003 actual budget 

allocation (base)

2005 actual budget 

allocation (base) Percentage change

Maryland 3,125,000 2,887,000 -8

Massachusetts 3,345,000 3,092,000 -8

Michigan 6,634,000 5,439,000 -18

Minnesota 3,414,000 2,698,000 -21

Missouri 3,641,000 3,342,000 -8

Montana 815,000 536,000 -34

Nebraska 964,000 887,000 -8

New Hampshire 815,000 729,000 -11

New Mexico 1,107,000 990,000 -11

New York 10,561,000 8,355,000 -21

North Dakota 606,000 444,000 -27

Ohio 8,436,000 6,308,000 -25

Oklahoma 2,325,000 1,862,000 -20

Oregon 2,503,000 2,363,000 -6

Pennsylvania 7,662,000 6,472,000 -16

Rhode Island 642,000 534,000 -17

South Dakota 527,000 444,000 -16

Vermont 623,000 444,000 -29

West Virginia 1,018,000 931,000 -9

Wisconsin 3,221,000 3,063,000 -5

Wyoming 494,000 444,000 -10

Total $156,398,000 $152,650,000

Source: Labor’s VETS.

Page 43 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix III: State Incentive Award 

Allocation and Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2004 

State Allocation Expended Unexpended

Alabama $23,780 $18,590 $5,190

Alaska 5,500 0 5,500

Arizona 29,000 29,000 0

Arkansas 13,970 0 13,970

California 179,240 0 179,240

Colorado 24,230 0 24,230

Connecticut 23,700 14,200 9,500

Delaware 4,465 0 4,465

District of Columbia 4,400 0 4,400

Florida 83,010 81,284 1,726

Georgia 36,050 36,050 0

Hawaii 6,200 0 6,200

Idaho 8,070 0 8,070

Illinois 65,150 59,498 5,652

Indiana 35,109 35,109 0

Iowa 18,660 0 18,660

Kansas 15,410 0 15,410

Kentucky 22,560 14,571 7,989

Louisiana 24,760 0 24,760

Maine 8,320 8,316 4

Maryland 29,727 10,000 19,727

Massachusetts 28,770 0 28,770

Michigan 53,070 0 53,070

Minnesota 27,310 0 27,310

Mississippi 15,250 15,925 -675

Missouri 31,580 0 31,580

Montana 6,520 0 6,520

Nebraska 8,840 0 8,840

Nevada 12,590 0 12,590

New Hampshire 7,140 0 7,140

New Jersey 38,200 27,053 11,147

New Mexico 9,832 9,832 0

New York 84,490 3,704 80,786

North Carolina 47,610 0 47,610

North Dakota 4,850 4,493 357

Ohio 67,490 0 67,490

Appendix III: State Incentive Award 

Allocation and Expenditures, Fiscal Year 

2004 

Page 44 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix III: State Incentive Award 

Allocation and Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2004 

State Allocation Expended Unexpended

Oklahoma $18,600 $0 $18,600

Oregon 22,550 0 22,550

Pennsylvania 66,100 0 66,100

Rhode Island 5,320 0 5,320

South Carolina 24,430 24,180 250

South Dakota 4,390 0 4,390

Tennessee 31,670 32,740 -1,070

Texas 110,580 95,468 15,112

Vermont 5,030 2,700 2,330

Virginia 38,150 33,392 4,758

Washington 41,330 35,244 6,086

West Virginia 9,850 7,386 2,464

Wisconsin 30,600 21,287 9,313

Wyoming 4,390 0 4,390

Total $1,528,203 $630,097 $898,106

Source: Labor’s VETS.

Page 45 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix IV: State-Negotiated Goals for 

Veterans Entering Employment through the 

DVOP and LVER Programs, Program Years 

2004 and 2005 

State 

DVOP performance goal

 (percent)

LVER performance goal

 (percent)

Alabama 56 60

Alaska 51 56

Arizona 60 58

Arkansas 53 53

California 50 51

Colorado 58 59

Connecticut 53 55

Delaware 56 55

District of Columbia 53 58

Florida 61 61

Georgia 65 65

Hawaii 45 42

Idaho 46 59

Illinois 45 46

Indiana 46 54

Iowa 57 57

Kansas 58 60

Kentucky 58 60

Louisiana 55 59

Maine 58 58

Maryland 56 60

Massachusetts 53 60

Michigan 46 48

Minnesota 50 52

Mississippi 58 59

Missouri 48 49

Montana 60 60

Nebraska 64 62

Nevada 55 56

New Hampshire 64 65

New Jersey 54 57

New Mexico 55 60

New York 55 57

North Carolina 56 56

North Dakota 59 63

Appendix IV: State-Negotiated Goals for 

Veterans Entering Employment through the 

DVOP and LVER Programs, Program Years 

2004 and 2005 

Page 46 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix IV: State-Negotiated Goals for 

Veterans Entering Employment through the 

DVOP and LVER Programs, Program Years 

2004 and 2005 

State 

DVOP performance goal

 (percent)

LVER performance goal

 (percent)

Ohio 50 56

Oklahoma 60 60

Oregon 47 54

Pennsylvania 54 59

Rhode Island 55 56

South Carolina 59 59

South Dakota 58 64

Tennessee 38 38

Texas 58 57

Utah 51 57

Vermont 55 56

Virginia 55 56

Washington 51 54

West Virginia 52 51

Wisconsin 56 58

Wyoming 48 57

Source: Labor’s VETS. 

Page 47 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix V: States’ Use of Full-Time and 

Part-Time Veterans’ Staff 

Table 5: Utilization of DVOP Staff 

State Full-time DVOP staff Part-time DVOP staff 

Number of DVOP staff that 

serve more than one local 

workforce area in the state

Alabama 16 1 0

Alaska 1 6 0

Arizona 35 0 0

Arkansas 9 0 9

California 123 10 0

Colorado 20 4 4

Connecticut 8 0 0

Delaware 5 0 0

District of Columbia 2 0 0

Florida 66 10 3

Georgia 50 0 0

Hawaii 4 1 0

Idaho 4 2 0

Illinois 38 0 10

Indiana 26 0 0

Iowa 15 0 15

Kansas 12 11 0

Kentucky 10 3 0

Louisiana 14 0 0

Maine 6 0 6

Maryland 25 a 0

Massachusetts 20 0 4

Michigan 31 0 15

Minnesota 21 4 0

Mississippi 19 12 11

Missouri 19 13 0

Montana 7 3 5

Nebraska 5 a0

Nevada 5 4 0

New Hampshire 5 0 2

New Jersey 33 1 0

New Mexico 9 0 0

New York 55 a0

North Carolina 22 0 0

Appendix V: States’ Use of Full-Time and 

Part-Time Veterans’ Staff 

Page 48 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix V: States’ Use of Full-Time and 

Part-Time Veterans’ Staff 

State Full-time DVOP staff Part-time DVOP staff 

Number of DVOP staff that 

serve more than one local 

workforce area in the state

North Dakota 2 0 2

Ohio 58 0 38

Oklahoma 18 0 0

Oregon 18 2 0

Pennsylvania 37 7 a

Rhode Island 2 1 0

South Carolina 15 8 2

South Dakota 4 9 2

Tennessee 32 a2

Texas 86 12 0

Utah 9 a0

Vermont 2 0 2

Virginia 35 0 3

Washington 36 0 3

West Virginia 6 0 a

Wisconsin 23 0 10

Wyoming 1 8 5

Total 1,124 132 153

Source: Survey of Directors of Veterans’ Employment and Training Services. 

a Indicates that the respondent did not know the answer to the question. 

Page 49 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix V: States’ Use of Full-Time and 

Part-Time Veterans’ Staff 

Table 6: Utilization of LVER Staff 

State Full-time LVER staff Part-time LVER staff 

Number of LVER staff that 

serve more than one local 

workforce area in the state

Alabama 16 2 0

Alaska 2 4 0

Arizona 14 9 1

Arkansas 10 6 14

California 72 19 0

Colorado 14 4 a

Connecticut 8 a0

Delaware 3 0 2

District of Columbia 2 0 0

Florida 56 9 4

Georgia 25 30 0

Hawaii 6 0 0

Idaho 8 5 0

Illinois 31 0 20

Indiana 32 1 0

Iowa 3 0 3

Kansas 10 2 0

Kentucky 15 12 0

Louisiana 16 3 1

Maine a 8 0

Maryland 17 a0

Massachusetts 19 a3

Michigan 29 0 11

Minnesota 14 0 14

Mississippi 0 0 18

Missouri 26 13 0

Montana 1 0 0

Nebraska 3 15 0

Nevada 6 1 1

New Hampshire 6 0 1

New Jersey 13 8 1

New Mexico 10 8 9

New York 50 a0

North Carolina 43 35 0

Page 50 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix V: States’ Use of Full-Time and 

Part-Time Veterans’ Staff 

State Full-time LVER staff Part-time LVER staff 

Number of LVER staff that 

serve more than one local 

workforce area in the state

North Dakota 5 3 5

Ohio 11 0 6

Oklahoma 16 18 0

Oregon 14 9 0

Pennsylvania 33 22 a

Rhode Island 3 0 1

South Carolina 17 15 0

South Dakota 1 1 2

Tennessee 30 7 3

Texas 91 18 0

Utah 6 7 7

Vermont 2 3 3

Virginia 27 8 0

Washington 24 0 3

West Virginia 6 4 a

Wisconsin 18 a3

Wyoming 1 1 2

Total 885 310 138

Source: Survey of Directors of Veterans’ Employment and Training Services. 

a Indicates that the respondent did not know the answer to the question. 

Page 51 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department Appendix VI: Comments from the of Labor 

Department of Labor 

Page 52 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 53 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 54 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Appendix VII: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 55 GAO-06-176 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Sigurd R. Nilsen (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov 

In addition to the individual mentioned above, Lacinda Ayers, Assistant 

Director; R. Jerry Aiken; Susan Bernstein; Jessica Botsford; Meeta Engle; 

Stuart Kaufman; Robert Miller; Emily Pickrell; Jay Smale; and Dianne 

Whitman-Miner made key contributions to this report. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment 

Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Preliminary Observations 

on Changes to Veterans’ Employment Programs. GAO-05-662T. 

Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. 

GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and 

Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans. GAO-01-928. 

Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2001. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance 

Measurement System Improved, but Further Changes Needed. 

GAO-01-580. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2001. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Strategic and Performance 

Plans Lack Vision and Clarity. GAO/T-HEHS-99-177. Washington, D.C.: 

July 29, 1999.

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Assessment of the Fiscal

Year 1999 Performance Plan. GAO/HEHS-98-240R. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 1998. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training: Services Provided by Labor 

Department Programs. GAO/HEHS-98-7. Washington, D.C.: October 17,

1997. 

(130444) Page 56 GAO-06-176 Jobs for Veterans Act Mandate
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER